







•b^ 




<* ♦ 



a 9 ^ 








c ** 







ar- ^o* 







*p^ 








<* 



tor. ^ < 



















® 




ON KECEIYING.DONATIOHS 



^^m. TKOil 







©mre 



•if) 



V 



h AMERICAN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 
FOR FOREIGN MISSIONS. 



DONATIONS FROM HOLDERS OF SLAVES. 

The reason for publishing the following letters, in the pre- 
sent form may be stated in few words. They were originally 
written in reply to letters addressed to the Secretaries of the 
Board, on the propriety of receiving donations made to its 
treasury by those who hold slaves. To avoid the necessity of 
writing on the subject at length, when inquiries may be made 
upon it in future, this method of making known the views 
of" the Committee has been adopted. The letters are given 
entire, and in their original shape, that any one to whom the 
pamphlet may be sent, may the more readily regard the state- 
ments and considerations contained in it, as being addressed 
to himself. 

Both the letters, it should be mentioned, were written to 
ministers of the gospel, highly esteemed and respected, who 
have given unequivocal evidence of their attachment to the 
Board, and the work in which it is engaged. 

My dear Sir, — Your favor of the came 



duly to hand, and has been submitted to the Prudential 
Committee, as you requested. We feel greatly obliged by 
the frank and Christian spirit which characterizes your 
letter, as well as by the confidence in the Board and lively 
interest in its objects, which you express, and which we 
have ample evidence that you feel. We take no offence 
at any inquiry or suggestion which yourself or any other 
such friend may make, in such a spirit and manner, rela- 
tive to the proceedings of the Board ; and in reply we will 
1 



2 

express our sentiments without reluctance or reserve. If 
we can view subjects in the same light with you, we shall 
be glad ; but if there must be disagreement, there shall 
not be contention or unkindness. No principles or modes 
of proceeding on the subject to which your letter relates 
have been adopted by the Committee, which they wish to 
conceal, or which they think are incapable of defence. 
Still the liability to error in both is such, as should dispose 
them to receive kindly and thankfully the hints and reas- 
onings which the friends of the Board may see fit to com- 
municate. 

In what I am about to write now, no attempt will be 
made to reply directly to the six reasons which you adduce 
against receiving donations from those who hold slaves ; 
though considerations might, perhaps, be advanced on this 
point, which would, at least, detract somewhat from their 
force and conclusiveness ; but admitting, for the present, 
that the reasons are well founded, some practical difficulties 
will be mentioned, which seem to lie in the way of apply- 
ing the principle involved in them, in transacting the 
business of the Board ; difficulties so numerous and great, 
that, until a suitable method of removing them shall be de- 
vised, the course which you propose cannot well be adopted. 

But before proceeding further, I beg leave to premise 
three things. 

1. The Board, in its corporate capacity, as a benevo- 
lent and Christian institution, has nothing to do with 
slavery. It was organized expressly for another object ; 
and to use its influence or its funds for removing slavery, or 
for bearing upon it, would be dishonest. Its members, as 
individuals, or as members of other associations, are free 
to act as they please on this and all other subjects ; but, 
as members of the Board, they do not feel obliged, nor at 
liberty, to look after and condemn, or to endeavor to put 



down every thing which they individually, or which other 
good men may think to be wrong and wicked in the com- 
munity. They leave all works of this nature, not fairly 
embraced among the objects for which the Board was 
organized, to others. 

2. The Board and its officers do not profess to know, 
and cannot generally know, the character and motives of 
those who contribute to its funds, or the sources of their 
income. To make inquiries on these points would proba- 
bly, by most persons, be deemed impertinent. A man 
from Kentucky, sends to the treasury of the Board, one 
hundred dollars ; it is received ; and the donor is, by the 
rules of the Board, constituted an honorary member. 
The treasurer does not feel under obligations, before re- 
ceiving the money, to ascertain whether the donor obtained 
it honestly or not, or whether he is a good citizen, or a 
moral man. A case might occur, of so marked and noto- 
rious a character, that the donation ought to be refused. 
But such cases will be rare, as few grossly immoral or 
dishonest men are interested in the objects of the Board, 
or disposed to use their property to promote them. 

3. In your letter you remark, that many who profess 
to be the friends of missions, and you subsequently say 
that you class yourself among them, think it wrong to 
solicit funds from those who hold slaves, " for the same 
reasons that they would regard it wrong to apply to a 
company of counterfeiters and highway robbers, or any 
other company who gained their subsistence and wealth 
by means of systematized wickedness, for a portion of 
their income, by means of which to carry on this great 
and glorious cause." — We cannot regard donations from 
those who hold slaves in the same light that we should 
donations from counterfeiters and highwaymen. There 
seems to us to be this wide and obvious difference : the 



donors in one case are, as you will admit, exclusive of the 
fact of their holding slaves, almost without exception, good 
citizens, honest and moral men, and a large portion of 
them reputable professors of religion ; and in general, they 
are persons seriously disposed, and professedly, and so far 
as we have any evidence, really desirous, by the dissemi- 
nation of Christianity, to convert the heathen to God. 
This, we suppose, cannot be said of the other classes of 
persons mentioned by you. 

Having made these remarks, I proceed to say, that the 
general principle which seems to lie at the foundation 
of the several reasons which you allege against receiv- 
ing donations from slave-holders into the treasury of the 
Board, I suppose to be this : Donations of property, the 
acquisition of which involves sin, should be rejected. Or, 
to render it a little more comprehensive, and to make it 
more appropriately the basis of some of your remarks, it 
should be : Persons living in the practice of certain sins 
should not be permitted, by means of their property, to aid 
in such a work as that in which the Board is engaged. 

Without attempting, as I before said, to decide whether 
this principle, in all its extent, is correct or not, let us 
look for a moment at some of the difficulties which must 
be met in its application to the case before us. 

One important question to be settled on this subject is, 
Hoio much of sin must be involved in the acquisition of a 
man's property, before we shall be bound to reject it ? 
Perhaps there are few men, in any department of business, 
whose property has not been, to some extent, and in some 
manner, increased by some wrong course of proceeding, 
either known or unknown to themselves. Probably your- 
self and they who view the subject as you do, readily 
admit, that even among those who hold slaves by a legal 
tenure, there may be, so far as this view of their character 



5 

is concerned, different degrees of sinfulness. For the sake 
of illustrating the case, let us admit that the profane and 
unfeeling master, who regards his negroes simply as he 
does his cattle, is not to be suffered to contribute money 
acquired by their labor. He is too wicked, and his wealth 
is too much the fruits of oppression and cruel injustice to 
be received. What then will you say of the planter in 
some retired part of the Carolinas, who is a reputable pro- 
fessor of religion, and, as you would admit, a humane and 
upright man in every thing, except holding slaves ; who 
inherited his negroes and grew up with all the habits and 
prejudices naturally springing out of such circumstances ; 
who has read, or heard, or thought little on the subject, 
and consequently regards the relation of master and slave 
very nearly as his father did fifty years ago ? Shall he be 
permitted to contribute ? — If not, shall the master, who, 
possessing a similar character, but with more intelligence 
and reflection than the one just referred to, admits slavery 
to be wrong and indefensible, but sees no way in which 
he can meliorate the condition of those under his care ; 
and therefore continues the relation, instructing them, 
providing for them, and treating them kindly ? May he 
contribute ? — If he may not, what will you say of the 
man, who, with all the feelings of the last, has actually 
formed his plan for emancipating his negroes, and is 
hastening it on to its consummation, though he may feel 
obliged to sustain the legal relation a year longer ? 
Shall he be allowed to contribute now ? or must he wait 
till his negroes have quite gone from under his hand ? Or 
shall he not be permitted to contribute at all from the 
property which may have been the avails of slave labor? 

Again, How large a portion of a man's income must be 
the fruit of his wrong doing, — or, as in the case before us, 
— of slave-holding, before we are bound to reject it? A 
1* 



man owns a plantation which is worked by slaves. The 
income of it is, of course, the joint avails of the sum in- 
vested in buildings, land, implements, and of his own skill 
and management, and of slave labor. How much of all 
the income from that plantation is the product of slave 
labor, and justly due to the slave? Obviously all of it is 
not, any more than all the profits of a voyage belong to 
the sailors, to the exclusion of the owner of ship and cargo, 
and the officers who managed it ; or any more than the 
avails of all the cloth manufactured at a mill belong to 
those who work at the spindles and looms, to the exclusion 
of those who own the buildings, machinery, and stock, 
and who mature and execute all the plans and make the 
contracts. A portion, then, and obviously a considerable 
portion too, of the products of a plantation does not belong 
to the slaves who work on it, and does belong to its owner 
and manager, and when appropriated to his use, is not to 
be regarded as the fruits of robbery, or oppression, or in- 
justice. Is a man, then, who desires to do good, to be 
excluded from the privilege of doing it, because that some 
portion of his property has been obtained by means which 
we, though he may not, deem unjust ? Suppose that a 
planter, mechanic, or merchant, carries forward his busi- 
ness by means of ten men, only one of whom is a slave, 
(and many cases like this might probably be found in 
Western Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee,) are all his 
gains so contaminated by his relation to this slave, that 
his offering must be rejected ? 

Again, How directly must a man's income arise from 
the avails of slave labor, before his donations must be re- 
jected ? What will you say to the Charleston or Mobile 
merchant, who buys and sells cotton ? or of the New York 
and Boston shippers who carry it ? or of the New England 
manufacturers who work it into cloth 1 or of the wholesale 



and retail dealers who scatter it through the community 1 
All these make their profits to a greater or less extent, 
and more or less directly, from the avails of slave labor. 
Are we to break off all cooperation with any or all of them, 
and refuse their donations, and class them with the offer- 
ings of counterfeiters and highwaymen ? Which makes 
the most net profit upon cotton, the planter, the shipper, 
or the manufacturer, it may be difficult to determine. 

Similar views may be taken respecting the gains of the 
producer, the carrier, and the vender of rice, sugar, to- 
bacco, and all other articles which are exported from a 
slave-holding community. Nor does the connection be- 
tween slavery and the gains of trade cease here. The 
New England merchant who sends his shoes and cloth, 
and other articles of manufacture or produce to a southern 
market, even if he receives cash in payment, receives to a 
greater or less extent the avails of slave labor, and of 
course a portion of his gains originate there. Indeed the 
subject has a thousand ramifications, in each of which 
the same general principle is involved, and in deciding 
the point as you propose, we must make a decision which 
shall cover much ground. 

But are the donations of slave-holders, and of others 
who derive gain from slave labor, the only donations 
rohich must be rejected? As it is not easy to measure 
the guilt of different men, so it is not easy to measure the 
sin involved in particular courses of conduct. Much pre- 
sumption is manifest in our attempts to do either to any 
considerable extent. The zealous advocate for peace 
may see more sin in war and the preparations for it, than 
in any thing else ; and may think that no offerings will be 
so offensive to God as those which are made from the wages 
of the soldier. And, for aught that I can see, the offerings 
of the smith and the founder who manuafacture the weap- 



8 

ons, and of those who furnish the clothing and provisions 
for the army, must come under the same condemnation. 

The temperance agent may think that none are so great 
sinners as they who manufacture or deal in intoxicating 
liquors, and that they ought not to be allowed to aid with 
their donations any object of religion or benevolence. And 
then he would involve the mechanics who erected and fur- 
nished the distillery, the farmer who produced the grain, 
and the carrier who transported the raw material, or the 
manufactured article, and all others who in any manner 
made a profit from this branch of business. 

So we might proceed and point out one branch of busi- 
ness after another, which many, if not most honest men 
think is injurious to the community, and the avails of 
which, on the principle which seems to me to be involved 
in your letter, ought not to be received into the treasuries 
of societies designed to promote benevolent and religious 
objects. 

But here other questions arise of a very practical char- 
acter, and at the same time encompassed with not a little 
difficulty. Who is to decide what branches of business, 
or what practices in the prosecution of them, do involve 
so much of wrong and wickedness that the avails should 
be rejected by all good men engaged in a good object ? 
Who is to decide how much a man must be concerned in 
these proscribed pursuits and practices, before his dona- 
tions must be rejected ? 

But supposing general rules for deciding these points 
to be fixed, before what tribunal shall the individual donors 
be brought, and on what evidence shall we rely ? Shall 
every treasurer be constituted an inquisitor on this subject, 
and his office be made a hall of examination, where the 
character, and occupation, and sources of income of every 
man who offers money shall be inquired into ; and before 



he shall be permitted to leave his gift, it shall be ascertained 
that he is not a soldier, nor a slave-holder, nor a distiller, 
nor a dealer in intoxicating liquors, nor a gambler, nor a 
thief, nor concerned in lotteries, etc.? How shall this be 
done? Shall we put the donor under oath; or correspond 
with his neighbors; or make him bring a certificate from 
men known to be good and true? 

But you may say that all this minuteness in the process 
is unnecessary, and is embarrassing the subject to no 
purpose. I honestly think, however, that every line I have 
written has a real and practical connection with the sub- 
ject, and that when our Board shall decide to act in con- 
formity with the suggestion in your letter, their examination 
and decision must cover this whole ground. How other- 
wise can they act equitably and on principle ? 

Perhaps you will say that it is enough to decide that no 
donations shall be received from within the bounds of any 
slave-holding State. But where would this lead us; or 
rather, where shall we start from ? Shall we begin with 
New York, and reject your donation, because one person 
in thirty thousand in your State is a slave? Or shall we 
begin with Connecticut, and reject the donations from all 
its churches, because one person in fifteen thousand is a 
slave there ? Or shall we begin with Pennsylvania, and 
reject donations from that State, because one person in 
three thousand is a slave there? Or with New Jersey, 
because one person in a hundred and fifty is a slave there? 
Or with Delaware, because one in thirty is a slave there ? 
Or with Maryland, because one in five is a slave there? 
Or with Tennessee, because one in four is a slave there ? 
Or with Virginia, where one in three is a slave ? Or with 
Louisiana, where one in two is a slave ? Or with South 
Carolina, where four out of seven are slaves? Where 
will you draw the line ? What boundaries will you pre- 
scribe ? 



10 

Perhaps you will say, that donations must be rejected 
from those States which are taking no measures to abolish 
slavery, and whose rulers, by the consent of the people, 
uphold and defend it. Here questions might arise which 
it would be difficult to answer satisfactorily. In respect 
to some States, we might, perhaps, properly decide that they 
do uphold and defend slavery ; and in respect to others, 
where some slaves still remain, we might decide that 
they do not uphold and defend it. But in respect to many 
others it might be impossible even to form an opinion 
whether the rulers and the mass of the population do 
uphold and defend it, or not. What shall be the decision 
relative to Delaware and Maryland, not to add Virginia, 
Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri ? 

But supposing it granted, that, in excluding men from 
cooperation with us in the work of missions, State lines 
are to be followed ; and that all the States south of Penn- 
sylvania, and of the Ohio river, and those west of the 
Mississippi, are to be proscribed ; will it be equitable and 
Christian to shut out from participation in this work every 
church member in Delaware, not one-half of whom own a 
slave, or derive profit from slave labor more than you or I? 
Will you shut out all those of Virginia west of the 
mountains, where comparatively few slaves are found, and 
where, as I heard a very intelligent gentleman from that 
quarter say in a public meeting a few years ago, the people 
are as thoroughly anti-slavery as are the inhabitants of 
Massachusetts? Will you exclude every man in East 
Tennessee, of a majority of whom the same may probably 
with truth be said, and where has existed, I believe, the 
only newspaper avowedly in favor of emancipation, to be 
found within the general limits just now mentioned? Will 
you exclude all Kentucky, in whose Synod the subject of 
slavery has been openly, repeatedly, and thoroughly dis- 



11 

cussed, the continuance of the system disapproved by a 
considerable majority, and measures for speedy eman- 
cipation recommended ; and where it is to be presumed 
that similar views are entertained by a majority of the 
church members? Will you exclude the Quaker, the 
Scotch, and the Moravian settlements in the central and 
western parts of North Carolina, by whom few or no 
slaves are held, and who are decidedly opposed to the 
system ? Will you exclude the many Christian merchants 
and mechanics in the southern cities, who do not own 
slaves, and have little or nothing to do with them in any 
manner ? Will you exclude the many preachers and 
teachers who cross the line before mentioned without ever 
possessing a slave ; or those who, with the same principles 
and practice on this subject, feel compelled by disease to 
seek a residence in a southern climate? Shall the gifts 
and cooperation of any or all of these classes of persons 
be spurned by our several religious and benevolent in- 
stitutions ? If not, it must be asked again, How shall the 
line designed to mark the degree of criminality, be drawn 
between him whose gift is to be received, and him whose 
gift is to be rejected ? or, How, when the gifts are sent to 
the treasurer or agent a hundred or a thousand miles off, 
is he to ascertain which comes from the man whom we 
may recognize as a fellow laborer, and which from him 
whom we must disown as no more worthy of fellowship in 
such a cause than a 'counterfeiter or highwayman?' 

But perhaps you will say, that, if the Board cannot 
properly adopt rules excluding donations from within the 
limits of slave-holding States, it may, at least, refrain from 
sending agents there to solicit them. If, however, it is 
right to receive donations from the classes of men just 
referred to, is it not right to furnish them with facilities 
for transmitting their offerings ? If it is the duty of these 



12 

men to give, is it not right for the Board to send agents 
there to tell them of their duty and urge thetn to perform 
it? to spread out before them the information, and enforce 
the arguments and motives which may lead them to regular 
and increased liberality? To discriminate and fix limits 
where we may, or where we may not send agents, would 
be as difficult as to decide from within what limits we 
might or might not receive donations. Further still, Is it 
not the duty of the Board, holding the place and making 
the professions which it does, — a duty which its members 
owe to the Lord Jesus, to the church, and to the heathen, 
— to use all suitable means within their power, to bring all 
men to co-operate promptly and vigorously in disseminating 
Christian knowledge among all nations? Is it wrong to 
urge the performance of their duty in this respect, on every 
class of the Christian community, whatever may be their 
dwelling place, their character, or occupation, — on the 
infidel even, the Mohammedan, and the idolater ? The 
Board has information on the subject; has bestowed much 
thought upon it; may be supposed to feel deeply; possesses 
the means of exerting influence; — which, altogether, render 
its situation peculiar, and impose peculiar obligations and 
responsibility. Shall the Board neglect to avail itself of all 
these in regard to the whole class of men in question ? 

But it may be said that the agents of the Board must 
first enjoin it on all such persons to renounce slave-holding. 
Why is it not as incumbent on them before they deliver 
their message, first to deliver a lecture on licentiousness, or 
war, or intemperance ? Is it never allowable to permit, or 
even urge men to perform one duty, while we know that 
they neglect another ? * A good man goes from village 

* On this point I would refer you to the Anti-Slavery Record, for October, 
objection fourth, page third of the cover, which I have just read, and where 
correct principles seem to me to be well expressed and maintained. " It is objected 
to the abolition enterprise, that unholy men are engaged in it. This is doubtless 



13 

to village, lecturing on astronomy, or history, or chemistry, 
and does not say a word about repentance or the atone- 
ment, though the majority of his hearers may be neglecting 
both. Does he do right ? or must he never say any more 
on these subjects until he find an assembly who have all 
repented and believed in Christ? The Board sends its 
agents to Virginia, and they preach only on missions to 
the heathen, and say nothing in their public addresses for 
or against slavery. The Anti-Slavery Society sends its 
agents to the same field, and they preach only on the 
abolition of slavery. The Home Missionary Society sends 
its missionaries there, and they preach on Christian doc- 
trines and duties generally. Why should the Board com- 
plain of the Anti-Slavery Society that its agents do not 
lecture on missions; or the Anti-Slavery Society complain 
of the Board that its agents do not urge the abolition of 
slavery; or the Home Missionary Society complain of the 
agents of either, because they do not preach repentance 
and faith? 

The Board, dear Sir, does not pretend to be cutting 
one wide swath through the world, with the aim and ex- 
pectation of clearing it, alone and at once, of all the sins, 
and wrongs, and miseries which infest it. The Board is 
attending to one thing — the conversion of the heathen to 
God, — while it leaves other associations to attend to other 

too true. But does it impair the truth of abolition principles? Does it stamp 
unholiness upon abolition measures? Why, we might as well deny the truth of 
the multiplication table because it is believed in and practised upon by unholy 
men. If I have right principles and a good object, can they be the less worthy 
because wicked men unite with me in avowing the principles and promoting the 
object ? By agreeing and acting with them whorein they are right, do I become 
responsible for all things wherein they are wrong? Were we to be influenced by 
this objection, it is quite possible that there are not in the world men enough who 
a<ree to think each other good and holy, to do it. But if a man has holiness 
enough to hate slavery and to love his fellow men, why should he not be en- 
couraged to exercise it, even if he have a bad creed or none at all ? And why should 
not the objector aid and encourage him in well-doing ? Whose spirit was it to 
shun a good deed because a Samaritan did it ? " 

2 



14 

things ; and in the mean time, its members will sympathise 
with them, and pray for and rejoice in their success, just 
so far as their objects seem to be prosecuted with a Chris- 
tian spirit, and promise, in their result, to promote God's 
glory and the welfare of men. The same community and 
the same individuals may patronize any number or all of 
the various religious and benevolent enterprises of the 
day; but in extending their aid to them severally, why 
should they not act through the organization and agency 
appropriate to each, without requiring one organization 
or its agents, to encroach on the appropriate sphere of 
another and do its work ? We have supposed that a 
division of labor was as desirable and advantageous in 
accomplishing great moral and philanthropic objects, as 
in intellectual pursuits, or those which require manual 
labor and skill ; and we have supposed, too, that one of 
the brightest features of the times — one which gave the 
fairest promise that this world would ultimately be re- 
covered from its state of guilt and ruin — was the fact, 
that for almost every class of evils which man can inflict 
or suffer, there is an association somewhere, designed and 
endeavoring to apply the appropriate remedy; and that 
over that evil, chosen men are pouring out their feelings 
and prayers, and toward its removal they are directing 
their best thoughts and labors. Is it wise to destroy this 
arrangement, and in place of it impose what are now the 
duties of all these associations and agents, acting in their 
several spheres, upon one of them? Or while they all 
exist, is it wise to disturb the harmony of their action by 
inducing one to encroach on the sphere of another, and 
thus lay the foundation for jealousy, fault-finding, and 
counteraction? 

I am almost ashamed, dear Sir, to tax your patience by 
so long a letter ; and it is a subject of regret that it has 



15 

been so long delayed. For the former my apology is, that 
it did not seem easy to despatch the subject, as it presented 
itself, in less compass; and for the latter, I have only to say, 
that the business before the Committee would not permit 
them at an earlier day to consider your communication. 

Praying that the time may soon arrive when all who love 
and desire to serve our common God and Saviour, may see 
eye to eye on all subjects relating to his glory and human 
welfare ; and that in the mean time we may all in gentleness 
and forbearance cultivate the spirit of our Master, 
I am, dear Sir, very respectfully and 

affectionately, your servant in Christ. 



The remaining letter was written about two years earlier 
than the foregoing. It contains, as will be seen, some of the 
sentiments found on the preceding pages, but in connection 
with a more general view of the subject. The remarks assumed 
their present shape in order to reply to the inquiry, whether 
the Board ought not, in some public manner, to express its 
disapprobation of slavery and slaveholders. 

Dear Sir, — In reply to the suggestions contained in 

your favor of , relating to the course to be pursued 

by the Board or the Prudential Committee in respect to 
slavery, I can make but a few remarks. We have sup- 
posed, after much thought on the subject, and, I trust, 
some sincere prayer for heavenly guidance, that, as a 
society, the Board has nothing to do with any of the 
questions respecting reformation of morals, or political 
abuses, any further than these evils have an obvious and 
specific bearing on the work which the Board is attempt- 
ing, through divine aid, to accomplish among the hea- 
then. If any evils or abuses, moral or political, whose 



16 

seat is in this country, extend themselves, so as to pre- 
sent hindrances to our work abroad, we suppose it to be 
proper for us to lay the facts before our community at 
home, and leave public sentiment, acting directly, or 
through appropriate organized institutions, or by the laws 
of the country, to effect a remedy. For example, if our 
licentious men go to the Sandwich Islands, and there act 
our their licentiousness, to corrupt the inhabitants and 
hinder the work of our missionaries, we state the facts, 
and leave the community to work the cure. So if our 
dealers in intoxicating liquors go there to do their work 
of death, we state the facts, and turn the perpetrators over 
to our temperance societies to reform them. We have 
taken this course in regard to both these classes of persons. 
So, if the slave-trader from our country should go to the 
vicinity of one of our African missions, and there, by his 
inhuman traffic, should spread consternation and misery 
among the people and retard our work, we must make his 
wickedness known, and leave him to the reprobation of 
the community and the punishment of the laws. But we 
have never supposed it to be duty or wisdom in the Board 
to adopt any direct measures for suppressing licentious- 
ness, or intemperance, or any similar evil at home ; nor 
does it seem to us, now, to be required of the Board to 
take any stand against slavery as it exists in our country, 
or against any other abuses or immoralities sanctioned by 
our government, — such as Sabbath mails, Sabbath drills 
in the army, etc. If any proceeding of the government 
should bear directly on our missionary operations, as in 
the case of the Cherokees, we must state the case and 
pursue the course which duty seemed to point out for 
remedying the evil, and leave the result to the providence 
of God. 

The object of the Board is specific and simple — the 



17 

conversion of the nations to Christianity — an intelligent, 
hearty Christianity. All persons who will labor with us 
honestly in this work, we receive and acknowledge as 
fellow-laborers. They may be very imperfect Christians 
themselves, manifesting glaring inconsistencies, and, in 
the opinion of large portions of the community, they may 
be guilty of gross sins; yet if they say that a conviction 
of duty compels them to aid in our work, why should we 
reject them ? We say, Never prevent a man from doing 
one duty because he does not acknowledge or perform 
another. Performing one duty, honestly and steadily, 
seems to us to be the best method of coming to a knowl- 
edge and performance of all others ; and the neglect of 
one known duty seems the surest way to keep from know- 
ing and performing others. If our brethren at the South 
will not do all which we think they ought, still, let them 
do what they admit and are willing to perform as duty. 
If the dealer in ardent spirits or the slaveholder brings 
money to our treasury, we see no propriety in asking him 
how he obtained it or in refusing to receive it. We take 
it and make the best use we can of it, though there may 
have been sin in the manner of obtaining it. Perhaps 
scarcely any man conducts his business wholly without 
sin. It may be inseparable from the business itself, or it 
may be in his manner of prosecuting it; and it may be 
perceived or unperceived by him. The difficulty lies in 
drawing a line and saying that the gains of a business 
which has more than this specific amount of sin in it shall 
not be received. Here casuists would disagree endlessly. 
We suppose that, with exception of some classes of sinners 
who are not at all likely to offer money to our object, we 
are to receive the contributions, as Paul directed the 
Corinthian Christians to take meats sold in the shambles, 
or set before them at a feast, " asking no questions for 



IS 

conscience sake ; " believing, if it is rightly appropriated, 
and in a right spirit, it will be, as the same apostle told 
Timothy in a similar case, "sanctified by the word of 
God and prayer." 

Proceeding on this ground, we leave the societies for 
moral reform to do their appropriate work ; the abolition 
societies to do theirs ; the temperance societies to do 
theirs ; — and so with regard to those institutions designed 
not so much to rectify particular evils, as to accomplish 
more immediately a positive good — as those for home 
missions, education for the ministry, the distribution of 
Bibles, tracts, etc.; while the Board makes it the imme- 
diate and sole object of its efforts to propagate Christianity 
among the heathen. 

I must not extend my remarks, already twice as many 
as I anticipated they would be when I commenced, by 
stating in detail the grounds on which gentlemen in our 
southern States have been elected into the Board, and 
still act with it ; but must simply say, that the members 
of the Board in all parts of the country are men in good 
standing in the churches where they reside ; men of re- 
spectability and influence in the community ; men who 
seem to love our common Redeemer, and who seem to be 
hearty in their desires to promote his cause and save the 
heathen ; men who give personal labor and influence, and 
their property to this work. Would it be consistent with 
the spirit of Christianity, or with kind and fraternal feeling, 
for men of this character in one part of our country, and 
with reference to such a work, to say to men in another 
part of the country, We will have no fellowship with you 
in converting the heathen to Christ (a work which both 
acknowledge to be right and obligatory), because on 
another subject we think you are greatly deficient in 
duty, or are guilty of heinous transgression ? We will 



19 

not be associated with you, we will not receive your 
money 1 

What would be the result ? The Board would become, 
not only so far as southern support is concerned, but also 
at the north too, strictly and exclusively an abolition for- 
eign missionary society ; and if other partizans on this 
subject should act in a similar manner, there would be a 
colonization foreign missionary society, and a slave-hold- 
ing foreign missionary society ; and perhaps other socie- 
ties to embrace other classes of friends to the conversion 
of the world to God, who entertained some opinion on the 
disputed question, different from these three. 

The same separation should, for similar reasons, be 
carried into all our other great religious and benevolent 
societies. And why should not similar divisions be made 
to run through all our societies, grounded upon different 
and conflicting views which their friends entertain on 
other great questions of morals or politics ? What a scene 
of division, contention, and inefficiency would our Chris- 
tian community then present ! How fatally would some 
of the strongest cords which bind the church together, in 
this day of excitement and separatism, be sundered ! 

It seems to me that the honor of Christianity and the 
efficiency of the church require that each of our religious 
and benevolent institutions should confine itself most 
strictly to its own sphere of action, leaving others to pur- 
sue their objects in their appropriate way ; and that the 
friends of each object, as their judgment and ability may 
direct, should rally around the appropriate society, uniting 
and cooperating gladly, where they can ; and in regard 
to other objects and other institutions, differing kindly, 
where they must differ. Thus, each one doing what his 
hand and heart find to do with his might, the work of 
subjecting this world to Christ will be all accomplished, 



20 

though by persons and in ways which to us seem often 
most unsuitable ; and when we shall arrive at the hill of 
Zion above, and sit down there, finding ourselves sur- 
rounded by our fellow-Christians of every class and com- 
munity, then seeing eye to eye, we shall look back to- 
gether on the complicate scenes in which we acted while 
on earth, and through which we were guided by heavenly 
wisdom, and be surprised, that, with all our imperfections 
and mutual jealousies, we were ever honored with doing 
any service for our Master ; though we may, perhaps, be 
permitted then to see that our very partialities and emu- 
lations were necessary as motives to quicken our ease- 
loving souls into laborious diligence, or to substitute a 
watchful search after right, for that indiscreet zeal which 
complete unity and unquestioning confidence are so apt 
to engender. 

Very respectfully and truly, dear Sir, 

yours in the common labors of the gospel. 



54 Hf* 







•-^ 9s ^\ 

"«* JBI'' ** 









M* ^ 













- ^°^ van; /°- : J3HSv > » ^ 




9^ 



* " 











